25th February 2026

Stockport Council cites “manifestly unreasonable” scope and disproportionate burden

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has formally refused two Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) requests relating to works at Vale View Primary School and the surrounding Mill Lane area in North Reddish.

The requests, logged under reference numbers EIR 101007969127 and 101007969135, were submitted on 27 January 2026 and sought extensive documentation concerning drainage, ground conditions, contamination, asbestos management, sporting provision and associated contractual records.

The Council determined that the requests should be treated under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and refused them under Regulation 12(4)(b), which allows public authorities to decline requests deemed “manifestly unreasonable”.

What Was Requested?

Although submitted as two separate requests, the Council assessed them together, stating they related to the same site and formed part of a single line of enquiry.

The first request sought wide-ranging documentation including:

  • Drainage design strategies and “as built” records
  • Inspection and maintenance logs
  • Ground investigations and infiltration testing
  • Flood risk and groundwater assessments
  • Contaminated land and remediation reports
  • Groundwater and surface water monitoring data
  • Asbestos surveys and air monitoring records
  • Contracts, invoices, audit documentation and health and safety records

The second request expanded the scope further to include matters connected to sporting facilities, including:

  • Consultation responses and advice from Sport England
  • Replacement sporting provision and delivery specifications
  • Correspondence between the Council, Sport England and third parties
  • Funding or grant applications and monitoring reports
  • Complaints and internal handling records

Council officers stated that, if held, the information would span multiple departments including planning, estates, legal and leisure services, as well as archived electronic and paper files.

Long-Running Background

In its response, the Council referenced previous correspondence and Freedom of Information requests relating to lightning protection at Vale View School, some of which were published via the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

It also referred to the tribunal case of Alan M Dransfield v Information Commissioner’s Office (EA/2013/0237), which examined when requests may be considered vexatious or unreasonable under information law.

While acknowledging that time had passed since earlier exchanges, the Council said it was entitled to consider whether the new requests sought genuinely new information or effectively revived a settled line of enquiry.

Why the Requests Were Refused

The Council stated that responding in full would require:

  • Searches across multiple service areas and legacy systems
  • Retrieval of archived and historic project files
  • Checks on records held by external contractors and consultants
  • Extensive collation and redaction of documents

Officers concluded that compliance would go “well beyond a straightforward retrieval exercise” and would amount to reconstructing and auditing historic records across numerous document types.

In applying Regulation 12(4)(b), the Council argued that:

  • The breadth and scale of the requests would impose a disproportionate burden
  • The passage of time increases the difficulty of locating relevant records
  • Compliance would divert resources from core Council functions
  • The cumulative impact of multiple linked requests must be considered

Public Interest Test

As required under the EIR, the Council carried out a public interest test.

Arguments in favour of disclosure included transparency around environmental measures, drainage systems and ground conditions, and increased public accountability.

Arguments against disclosure centred on the scale of the request, resource implications and the view that the requests revisited a long-running matter with limited likelihood of uncovering materially new information.

On balance, the Council concluded that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception and formally refused both requests.

What Happens Next?

The applicant has 40 working days to request an internal review. If dissatisfied following that process, they may appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The Council also noted that any documents disclosed in future may fall under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015, requiring a separate request if they are to be used for a new purpose.

Romiley Gazette will continue to follow developments relating to Vale View School and environmental oversight in the borough, as we have done since 2009.